Labour Vs Coalition policy

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

If my boss offers me overtime and I'll lose 75% of it to the Government (as is currently the case in France for high earners) I won't do the overtime. Does that make me a tax fraudster?

I thought you had made the point before that the higher the tax rate the more people will try to avoid it (presumably by hook or by crook)?

BertieUK

When I worked for the UKAEA we had little choice as to work overtime to complete orders for foreign markets. We thought more of keeping our jobs that trying to avoid paying tax.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

2.) That the first year it was brought in it was "instant" and did capture that years Bankers Bonuses, or at least gave little time to squirrel it away elsewhere. The second year they had more time to plan.

Bonuses in future may well be paid in the form of long term incentive plans. LloydsHBOS is looking at terms of up to 10 years.

So tax take will be diminished in any event in the shorter term.

Fella

StevieJ wrote: »

They must have been worried that the Tories would gain power and cleared off

Even by your standards that's a pitiful post. I doubt many people on £1m type salaries are "worried the Tories would gain power".

StevieJ

Fella wrote: »

Even by your standards that's a pitiful post. I doubt many people on £1m type salaries are "worried the Tories would gain power".

Even by your standards that was a pointless post.

Fella

It was fairly pointless I agree, I was merely pointing out how moronic your statement was.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought you had made the point before that the higher the tax rate the more people will try to avoid it (presumably by hook or by crook)?

That high tax makes tax fraud more attractive is self evident.

To imply that the Laffer curve exists solely or mostly because of tax fraud is ludicrous.

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

1.) I thought the limit was £150K not £1m.

The £1m is used by commentators to hilight the £40k "give away" by reducing the rate, for those declaring an income of that amount .

2.) That the first year it was brought in it was "instant" and did capture that years Bankers Bonuses, or at least gave little time to squirrel it away elsewhere. The second year they had more time to plan.

3.) To consistently earn £150k you would think you would have to have some nous. Quite why anyone is exposed to large income tax bills above it is odd. Loosing the personal allowance over £100K isn't cheap either.

Are you confusing the 50% tax on bankers' bonuses paid by the bank (I.e. if I, a bank, pay you, a banker £100,000 as a bonus I have to pay £50,000 to the govt - on top of NI) with the 50% income tax band (I.e. the tax the banker has to pay rather than the bank?)

IIRC the bonus tax was bought in with immediate effect part way through a tax year whereas the 50% rate was announced at the budget to take effect from 6 April one year later - I.e. the income tax rise was clearly telegraphed whereas the bonus tax was not.

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought you had made the point before that the higher the tax rate the more people will try to avoid it (presumably by hook or by crook)?

Not working is a way of avoiding tax.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Are you confusing the 50% tax on bankers' bonuses paid by the bank (I.e. if I, a bank, pay you, a banker £100,000 as a bonus I have to pay £50,000 to the govt - on top of NI) with the 50% income tax band (I.e. the tax the banker has to pay rather than the bank?)

IIRC the bonus tax was bought in with immediate effect part way through a tax year whereas the 50% rate was announced at the budget to take effect from 6 April one year later - I.e. the income tax rise was clearly telegraphed whereas the bonus tax was not.

Thanks chewy it was the bonus bit for point2. :doh: